BACKGROUND: Conventional stent-based angioplasty was challenged for the high incidence of perioperative complications and follow-up in-stent restenosis (ISR) in treating intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD). Currently, the drug-coated balloon (DCB) has shown promise in preventing and treating ISR. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of DCB dilation (with or without stenting) with conventionally only stenting angioplasty for symptomatic ICAD in routine clinical practice. METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2019, consecutive patients treated with endovascular therapy for symptomatic ICAD were identified and dichotomized by whether DCB was used. The efficacy and safety endpoints, including periprocedural complications, clinical, and imaging follow-up outcomes between the 2 groups, were compared by propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients in the DCB group and 73 patients in the non-DCB group were enrolled. Propensity score matching analysis selected 76 matched patients. Angiographic follow-up was completed at 185 ± 33 d. The median stenosis degree (0 [0%-20.0%] vs 15.0 [0%-62.5%], P = .005) and total restenosis incidence (5.3% [2/38] vs 34.2% [13/38], P = .003) in the DCB group were significantly lower than those in the non-DCB group. The periprocedural complications (2.6% vs 10.5%, P = .375), recurrent ischemic events (2.6% vs 13.2%, P = .219), and symptomatic restenosis (2.6% vs 10.5%, P = .375) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventionally only stenting angioplasty, DCB dilation can effectively lower restenosis degree and total restenosis risk, with no superiority in symptomatic restenosis at 6-mo follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Conventional stent-based angioplasty was challenged for the high incidence of perioperative complications and follow-up in-stent restenosis (ISR) in treating intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD). Currently, the drug-coated balloon (DCB) has shown promise in preventing and treating ISR. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of DCB dilation (with or without stenting) with conventionally only stenting angioplasty for symptomatic ICAD in routine clinical practice. METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2019, consecutive patients treated with endovascular therapy for symptomatic ICAD were identified and dichotomized by whether DCB was used. The efficacy and safety endpoints, including periprocedural complications, clinical, and imaging follow-up outcomes between the 2 groups, were compared by propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients in the DCB group and 73 patients in the non-DCB group were enrolled. Propensity score matching analysis selected 76 matched patients. Angiographic follow-up was completed at 185 ± 33 d. The median stenosis degree (0 [0%-20.0%] vs 15.0 [0%-62.5%], P = .005) and total restenosis incidence (5.3% [2/38] vs 34.2% [13/38], P = .003) in the DCB group were significantly lower than those in the non-DCB group. The periprocedural complications (2.6% vs 10.5%, P = .375), recurrent ischemic events (2.6% vs 13.2%, P = .219), and symptomatic restenosis (2.6% vs 10.5%, P = .375) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventionally only stenting angioplasty, DCB dilation can effectively lower restenosis degree and total restenosis risk, with no superiority in symptomatic restenosis at 6-mo follow-up.